When millions of health-insurance plans were canceled last fall, the Obama administration tried to be reassuring, saying the terminations affected only the small minority of Americans who bought individual policies.

But according to industry analysts, insurers and state regulators, the disruption will be far greater, potentially affecting millions of people who receive insurance through small employers by the end of 2014.

While some cancellation notices already have gone out, insurers say the bulk of the letters will be sent in October, shortly before the next open-enrollment period begins. The timing — right before the midterm elections — could be difficult for Democrats who are already fending off Republican attacks about the Affordable Care Act and its troubled rollout.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34552. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and get canceled, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.

Even now, the Post is hedging its bets a bit:

The transformation of the small-group market is just one of the many ripple effects of the Affordable Care Act that will reshape the insurance industry in coming years. With millions of previously uninsured people getting coverage, the insurance industry’s business model is being upended, and that’s leading to changes involving all sorts of products, not just those sold through the online marketplaces to individuals.

The impact of cancellations in the small-group market is expected to be less dramatic than in the individual market, partly because a higher percentage of small-business policies provide more generous benefits. Still, the changes being made by the insurance industry are leaving some small-business owners confused and disillusioned about the law — whether it is directly to blame for the changes or not. …

Now that insurers aren’t able to charge more to people with preexisting conditions, companies with sicker workers may see lower premiums, while those with a healthier workforce may see higher premiums. Many small businesses are also discovering that the new plans have more restrictions on access to specific doctors, hospitals and prescription drugs.

The reason, said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main trade group, is that the law requires small businesses to purchase coverage that is more comprehensive than what some buy today, and that drives up costs.

In other words, the law is to blame for those cost hikes, thanks to the coverage mandates and price-fixing on riskier consumers. That will mean a lot of businesses opting to dump coverage — and a lot more Americans having to navigate the much more expensive individual exchanges for coverage, and probably a lot more of those opting to pay the fine and forget it. If you think this month is “disruption,” you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

That will mean a lot of businesses opting to dump coverage — and a lot more Americans having to navigate the much more expensive individual exchanges for coverage, and probably a lot more of those opting to pay the fine and forget it. If you think this month is “disruption,” you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Disruption, are you kidding me? Millions of Americans are being given the opportunity to dump their substandard plans and replace them with a plan that provides them with womb-to-tomb awesomeness! We all should be talking up the great things Obamacare does instead of focusing on premiums, deductibles, and a crappy website!

The transformation of the small-group market is just one of the many ripple effects of the Affordable Care Act that will reshape the insurance industry in coming years. With millions of previously uninsured people getting coverage, the insurance industry’s business model is being upended, and that’s leading to changes involving all sorts of products, not just those sold through the online marketplaces to individuals.

Where is the evidence of this?? There are millions less people with insurance now than there was in September of 2013

Someone should ask Sandra Fluck if she has signed up for ZeroCare. After all this cost and tyranny, I’d like to at least know the woman got her pills. Maybe she could say “thank you” too.

MTF on January 13, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Yeah, given the whore is at the heart of the HHS mandate and attack on religion, she really deserves full credit for the high cost of contraception. Dems are looking for a way to rename this something other than Obamacare. Fluckyoucare may be a contender.

Robert Laszewski—a prominent consultant to health insurance companies—recently wrote in a remarkably candid blog post that, while Obamacare is almost certain to cause insurance costs to skyrocket even higher than it already has, “insurers won’t be losing a lot of sleep over it.” How can this be? Because insurance companies won’t bear the cost of their own losses—at least not more than about a quarter of them. The other three-quarters will be borne by American taxpayers.
Obamacare

For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation. Indeed, it’s bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that’s $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, through Washington, to health insurance companies. It’s even worse that Obamacare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers’ product (although there are escape routes). It’s almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers’ losses.

I see on Drudge they’re already working on the insurance company bailout.

Suck on it folks.

BigWyo on January 13, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Of course they are. Obama has a pliant media, a weak-willed opposition, the federal purse, and the ability to make this law say whatever he wants it to say to serve his political ends. This law will NOT be allowed to fail. No matter what it takes.

My wife’s grandfather is a broker. his small group business has ceased to exist. All those clients have shifted their employees into individual plans at greater expense. Not through the exchange though. Just direct with Blue Cross.

With millions of previously uninsured people getting coverage, the insurance industry’s business model is being upended, and that’s leading to changes involving all sorts of products, not just those sold through the online marketplaces to individuals.

With millions of previously uninsured sick people getting coverage, the cost of insurance is going up – forcing many healthy people to be thrown off their existing plans and onto either the overpriced exchange – or out of the market all together. Nice shift in the risk pool.

Not gonna happen. First of all, Aetna and United opted out of Obamacare and so did other insurance cos. So even the companies that are participating got wiped out, there are plenty of insurance companies still standing. In addition, a lot of the insurance companies own major banks and real estate companies and brokerage firms. Remember what happened in 08 when only bear stearns and lehman were going down and people thought the world econ would crumble. Taking out all of the private insurance companies would clearly bring down the world econ due to all the interrelation. single payer couldn’t pass with 60 dem senators. it’s not gonna happen.

The wait-times and the lengths people have to go through to contact and verify their insurance are enormous now, with only the individual-market folks working the phones.

Can you imagine how bad it will be when 40-90 million people are all trying to get through to their insurance company on the phone to make sure they have insurance, or to make sure an appointment will be covered–all during election season?

It it weren’t causing real suffering to lots of real people, it would be fun to watch.

No problem. Obama will give the mandate a 1 year waver to get past the midterms. Easy peasy. You don’t really think Obama is going to let the electorate have a taste of their healthcare doom prior to the midterms do you?

There has not been much written on the negative effects of Obamacare on disposable income and the consequent falloff of economic activity.

Viator on January 13, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Meanwhile Sen. Schumer says:

“The number one issue in the 2014 election is not going to be Obamacare or the deficit. It is going to be who can get the middle class going again. Who can expand middle class incomes, who can create jobs? That is far and away the issue that most Americans care about.”

WTF? Since Obamacare is forcing my insurance rates to skyrocket – my disposable income is nonexistent. Somebody should ask these idiots how a boat anchor like the ACA is going to help the economy.

If WaPo means medical coverage, they’ve always had that via the Emergency Rooms, so ObamaCare did nothing there. If WaPo means insurance coverage these millions of previously uninsured people are largely unaware of ObamaCare, and cannot therefore be signed up for it.

Do these people have editors? Is logic no longer a requirement to report the propag… err, I mean, news.

Many small businesses are also discovering that the new plans have more restrictions on access to specific doctors, hospitals and prescription drugs.

followed by:

The reason, said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main trade group, is that the law requires small businesses to purchase coverage that is more comprehensive than what some buy today, and that drives up costs.

so which is it…better coverage or worse coverage? I don’t think the Post can bring itself to admit what a fail this is. After all, they are relying on a quote from an industry trade group spokesman, whose very existence is to blow sunshine up your butt about their awesome health insurance.

Top it off with:

Still, the changes being made by the insurance industry are leaving some small-business owners confused and disillusioned about the law — whether it is directly to blame for the changes or not.

Are we supposed to believe there is another reason other than the law for all these changes to be forced onto us? It must be painful to twist yourself in so many knots covering for this President.

Every single person that is kicked off of their insurance plans, that they no doubt liked and were satisfied with or they wouldn’t have had them (the whole free market thing of the past), should turn out and vote against DimocRats in November.

Taking bets on who thinks this is really going to be allowed to happen. As opposed to Obama/Dems pulling every fiat trick, waiver, subsidy, and everything else in the book to simply delay all of this until after the election.

The problem, Ed, is that you and every other blogger will keep pushing this “oh, man, all hell’s about to break loose and the Dems are going to be destroyed” crap until it’s too late, and the stupid Republicans will be banking on it all year long. They’ll do so as they continue to war with conservatives. They’ll do so as they push for amnesty. They’ll do so as they continually foist milquetoast squishy establishment-type candidates on us. They’ll do so thinking they can safely do whatever they want because all of this anticipated Obamacare disruption will allow them to do so without having to otherwise actually behave themselves.

And in November, after Obama has waived and subsidized the masses into complacency, the Dems *will* be running on Obamacare, and the sheeple will say, “yeah, it’s not really been that bad – I got my subsidy, still got my coverage, etc – what are the Repubs whining about?”.

And the Republicans will have nothing in their corner but an extremely pissed-off base, having been snookered once again, looking around dumbfounded, still not entirely sure what went wrong.

And in the post-mortem, GOP will decide that they must *further* alienate conservatives, embrace the leftward suck even more, and run someone truly ‘electable’ like Lindsey Graham for President or something equally brilliant.

I have enough problems and stress in my life that to have to spend hours and hours of my time researching health care is absolutely wrong! I have health care with my employer that I like and is reasonable and the federal govt. wants to take it away! Throw the bums out and elect individuals who will shit can this Obamacare Bill!!!

You got that right. And Big Pharma is gearing up for it as we speak. Have any of you noticed the drastic spike in drug prices recently? I just paid $195 for a vial of Lantus insulin at Costco. The same insulin I paid $136 for last month. And I was advised that Novolog will cost me $303 for a 5 cartridge box. I paid $267 for it last month. Both these drugs are well past R&D and studies, so why the price spike? Gearing up for single payer is my guess.

And in November, after Obama has waived and subsidized the masses into complacency, the Dems *will* be running on Obamacare, and the sheeple will say, “yeah, it’s not really been that bad – I got my subsidy, still got my coverage, etc – what are the Repubs whining about?”.

Midas on January 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Midas, you underestimate the problem. What is Obysmal going to do about the doctors to make them see all these “covered” patients for slave wages? How will he quickly persuade the insurance companies to broaden their networks?

“Somewhere between 40% and 67% of people who have existing group insurance plans will lose them.”

How can those numbers be predicted?

I think even large corporations are going to have a herd mentality and use ObamaCare to toss us all on the exchanges to lighten their load. They will do this in unison to mitigate the flight risk. And I don’t think there’s any anti-trust mechanism to stop them.

I think you are correct and I am now convinced single-payer was the goal all along – the ObamaCare mutant that we’ll end up with. They are going to use human misery of the ‘mess’ as a lever to get what they want.

Coincidentally (?), I just finished my family’s bug-out bags. Although it felt a bit silly at times, I am heartened by the fact that I think it will be the same ‘us’ against ‘them’ out there. And I’m certain that survival is a painfully objective pursuit.

Pull the mask off the “employer paid” perk, and suddenly the majority can see the real costs of what they’ve taken for granted. Most employees have no idea how much their insurance costs, while we self-payers are acutely aware (watching my own go up $6000/yr, as well as increasing my deductible/co-insurance exposure by another $10K… We really should push for the same treatment of social security and medicare by waving a regulatory wand that raises all wages by the employer’s 7.85% “share” and let the employees enjoy their “higher” wage, as well as the full 15.7% of that income that goes to SS/MC. Now how do we feel, as a nation, about the financing of those “entitlements”?

Reminds me of the guy who used to line up his employees on payday, hand them their gross wages in cash, and then take back the cash from them to cover the tax deductions. Nothing illegal and not some kind of tax scam, but the IRS came down on him pretty hard.

Pull the mask off the “employer paid” perk, and suddenly the majority can see the real costs of what they’ve taken for granted. Most employees have no idea how much their insurance costs, while we self-payers are acutely aware (watching my own go up $6000/yr, as well as increasing my deductible/co-insurance exposure by another $10K… We really should push for the same treatment of social security and medicare by waving a regulatory wand that raises all wages by the employer’s 7.85% “share” and let the employees enjoy their “higher” wage, as well as the full 15.7% of that income that goes to SS/MC. Now how do we feel, as a nation, about the financing of those “entitlements”?

twgriff on January 13, 2014 at 11:46 AM

Yes. This is why it is so infuriating when someone says “COBRA is so expensive!” That was always the cost, but employees get the other portion they weren’t expecting paid to them tax free by the employer. Self employed people should get the same tax treatment as those who are employed, but they don’t in this case and many others.

Reminds me of the guy who used to line up his employees on payday, hand them their gross wages in cash, and then take back the cash from them to cover the tax deductions. Nothing illegal and not some kind of tax scam, but the IRS came down on him pretty hard.

What is Obysmal going to do about the doctors to make them see all these “covered” patients for slave wages? How will he quickly persuade the insurance companies to broaden their networks?

Coverage does not equal Care.

NOMOBO on January 13, 2014 at 10:51 AM

He can waive the ‘slave wages’ part – for awhile. He can promise the insurance companies more taxpayer monies to broaden their networks. He can continue to flout the Constitution and rule by fiat, changing legislation by whim to suit the immediate needs of his polling and party.

“Somewhere between 40% and 67% of people who have existing group insurance plans will lose them.”

How can those numbers be predicted?

I think even large corporations are going to have a herd mentality and use ObamaCare to toss us all on the exchanges to lighten their load. They will do this in unison to mitigate the flight risk. And I don’t think there’s any anti-trust mechanism to stop them.

I predict closer to 100%.

Tsar of Earth on January 13, 2014 at 10:57 AM

I predicted in another thread 90%. I’m sticking with that prediction. The people who post at HA are political junkies and policy wonks. But that’s not most Americans. When it comes to Joe Average, I honestly don’t think the average idiot Obama-voter has any clue, even now, that they are about to be forced to buy something that they don’t want, don’t need and can’t afford. I don’t even think that they know what insurance is, frankly.

Someone should ask Sandra Fluck if she has signed up for ZeroCare. After all this cost and tyranny, I’d like to at least know the woman got her pills. Maybe she could say “thank you” too.
MTF on January 13, 2014 at 8:50 AM

moochers NEVER say thank you … or Please … they just stick their hands out and say gimme
conservative tarheel on January 13, 2014 at 9:02 AM

MTF and Conservative, you’re missing the fact that Sandra has been taught her entire life that those pills are an explicitly-defined, guaranteed constitutional right – just like abortion. So in her mind, she is not a moocher saying gimme, and there’s no one she needs to thank either.

so which is it…better coverage or worse coverage? I don’t think the Post can bring itself to admit what a fail this is. After all, they are relying on a quote from an industry trade group spokesman, whose very existence is to blow sunshine up your butt about their awesome health insurance.

goflyers on January 13, 2014 at 10:14 AM

To be fair, the former is mostly referring to the size of the in-network pool of doctors/hospitals, while Captain Sunshine is talking about “comprehensive” in terms of services paid for by the insurer.

Technically, those two situations can co-exist, but that is (one of) the chief failing(s) of the law: they presume that in mandating minimum coverage, they can suddenly make all kinds of services “essential” and that will fix everybody’s health problems, without accounting for what insurers may do to the size of the network, or whether some doctors will continue to accept certain brands of insurance. What’s the point in having everything covered if none of your doctors are in network, and the only insurer in the exchange (what was that about corporate monopolies, Mr. President?) doesn’t cover a third of the hospitals in the state?